Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

different

“It appears, therefore, that the Faculty was very Faculty proproperly decreed by the Court below, and that the perly decreed. Surrogate very properly took a view of the Church himself.” (a)

“ It is also very proper that the Faculty has not Seats approappropriated, as the terms of the Citation called priated to upon it to do, the Seats to the messuages, but to families. families resident in the Parish. Great inconvenience has been found to arise from annexing Pews to houses :the houses become dilapidated; the inhabitants of them fail in their circumstances; new houses are erected, and the occupiers of them want Pews.” (a)

" It is very desirable that after due time has been the usual given as encouragement to those who build them, form of grant. the Seats should return to the disposition of the Ordinary. The form of the Grant should be, . So long as they continue inhabitants of the Parish,' or, “So long as they continue inhabitants of the Parish, and occupiers of the messuages stated;' the former of these is the more usual, as it gives no notion of annexing to houses. I affirm the sentence of the

I Court below." (a) In the early part of the last century, A.D. 1725, Faculty to

appropriate a new Gallery was erected in the Parish Church of for 99 years. Croydon, under a Faculty then granted; the population of the place was at that time increasing, and has since continued to increase very rapidly. It seems that, to encourage contributions towards the erection of this Gallery, the Faculty allowed the contributors, not only to have Pews in the Gallery

[ocr errors]

(a) Tattersall v. Knight, 1 Phill. 237.

H

allotted to them for a term of ninety-nine years, but to assign those Pews to other Parishioners. It did not appear whether this power of assignment was general, or limited to one term, nor whether during the term the general right of the Parishioners and of the Ordinary was suspended and excluded ; at all events, it revived at the expiration of the ninety-nine

years. (6)

Possession of Pew passed with the house.

Ilouse sold after expiration of the Faculty.

[ocr errors]

One of these Pews was, on the expiration of the Faculty, occupied by a Mr. Haines, who had been in possession since A.D. 1816; he dwelt in a respectable house and premises, and with that house the possession of this Pew seems generally to have been allowed to pass. But of course no prescriptive title had been acquired, for the origin of the title appears, as well as the condition and terms in which the Pews were granted. (c)

After the death of Mr. Haines, his house was sold by auction, and Mr. Blake, the auctioneer, held out that this Pew increased the value of the premises, and promised to deliver possession of it, which he had no legal right to do. (d)

It appears that a Mr. Usborne, a respectable person and a Parishioner of some standing, took possession of the Pew, and upon this, Blake and his mother obtained permission from the Churchwardens, temporarily to sit in the Pew, to keep possession for the purchaser and future occupier of the house. (e)

In a case of perturbation of Church Seat between (b) Blake v. Usborne, 3 Hag. (d) Blake v. Usborne, 3 Hag. 732.

734. (c) Ibid. 733.

(e) Ibid. 736, 735.

Possession disputed.

3

[ocr errors]

house had a

[ocr errors]

the parties, it was held that Mr. Usborne had not Parishioner

has no right to acquired any right to the Pew, and might be re- take possession moved, as the Court would be unwilling to give a of a vacant

Seat. sanction to his conduct, and thus give currency to an opinion that a Parishioner, when a Pew is vacant, is justified in stepping into and occupying it without legal authority. But the Court, however, stated, that he ought, at all events, to be properly seated. (f)

It was also held, that though this Faculty right Late owner of had expired before Mr. Haines's death, and though Possessory he had no prescriptive title, yet so long as he lived right. and continued an inhabitant of the Parish, in this or some other respectable house, he had personally such a Possessory right, as, except on very strong grounds of paramount necessity, arising from an urgent want of accommodation for other persons, it would be improper to disturb. (9)

But upon his death, the Pew having reverted to Which rethe use of the Parishioners, it became the duty of Churchthe Churchwardens to allot the Pew to the use of wardens at his

death. the Parishioners, by accommodating as many fainilies as it was capable of receiving; it being a large Pew, situated in the Gallery where the higher classes of the inhabitants were placed. (h)

And the Court recommended, that if there were They should not very strong reasons to the contrary, the Church- not continue wardens should not continue the Pew to the occu- occupier of

the house. pier of Mr. Haines' house. (*)

And if there was not any one large family of long (f) Blake v. Usborne, 3 Hag. (h) Blake v. Usborne, 3 Hag. 736.

734. (g) Ibid. 733.

(i) Ibid. 736.

verted to the

[ocr errors]

3

it to others.

was an im

But dispose of standing, and respectable station, in the Parish, who

wanted such a Pew, the Churchwardens might place in it two or three families, giving them Sittings in proportion to their numbers; for in a dense and increasing population, a Pew may be allotted in portions and Sittings, if the exigency of the Parish renders such an exercise of discretion expedient and

proper. (k) The auctioneer It was also held, that even if Blake the aucproper person. tioneer, and bis mother, had been regularly seated,

the Churchwardens would have exercised their discretion improperly; but what they did was evidently done with the view of enabling Blake to fulfil the conditions of sale, by keeping possession till the Pew was wanted for the occupant of Mr. Haines' house. (1)

This being perfectly irregular and improper, gave had no posses- no legal right to exclude others, as Blake had no

possession, in which he was capable of being in legal consideration disturbed, and, consequently, he was not warranted in bringing a Suit of perturbation, against any person who might enter the Seat. (1)

When a person is indulged with a Gallery, the should be given up.

Parish ought to compel him to exchange his own Pew for that accommodation. For he ought to be required either to go back to his own proper Pew,

or give it up to the Parish. (m) Arrangement As to the mere arrangements of Seats, if the of Seats.

Parishioners can settle that amongst themselves, and to their own satisfaction, and can agree about (k) Blake r. Usborne, 3 Hag. (m) Walter v.

Drury, 1 Haz. C. C. 319. (1) Ibid. 735.

And therefore

.

Old Pew

Gunner and rebuilt.

734.

the expense, there seems but little necessity for the interference of the Incumbent, the expense being that of the Parishioners. (n)

On rebuilding a Church, the adjustment of the Where Church Pews is usually left to the Rector and Church- has been wardens. (0)

But where a Parish Church has been taken down Under Church and rebuilt, and money borrowed and rates levied Building Acts. for the purpose, under the provisions of the Church Building Acts, one-half of the additional accommodation so obtained is to be set apart for free and open Sittings; and all persons enjoying any Pews or Sittings by Faculty or Prescription, in the old Church, are to have Pews or Sittings, as near as may be, in the same situation, of like dimensions, allotted and set apart for them, in the new Church. (p) At any time within six months after the substitu. Where a

Commission tion of a new Church for an old one, the Bishop

may be issued. of the Diocese may, of his own accord, or must, if required by any person claiming to hold a Pew or Seat free of rent in the old Church, by Faculty or Prescription, issue a Commission under his hand and seal, directed to the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry containing the old Church ; and to any two Incumbents of Parishes within such Archdeaconry, and to any two laymen not claiming to hold any such Pews or Seats, and to be nominated for this purpose by the Churchwardens of the old Church. (9)

(p) 59 Geo. III. c. 131, s 40.

(n) Tattersall v. Knight, 1 Phill. 233.

(0) Rogers v. Brooks & wife, M. T. 24 Geo. III. B. R. cited Stocks v. Booth, 1 T. R. 432 n.

(9) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70, . 1.

« AnteriorContinuar »